While the media seems awfully worried how Benedict will handle sex scandals, women in ministry, birth control, married priests, abortion (notice a theme?), I think the RC's relations with other faiths will be much more important in the long run.

Do any of our resident Catholics have any insights on how the RCs will relate to the Orthodox, the Anglicans, Protestantism in general, the Jews, the Muslims?

I think it gets old that the American media focuses so much on issues that likely wouldn't have been addressed, regardless of who was chosen. All I've heard about for the last 3 weeks is contraception, abortion, celibacy, women priests, etc. Our media is so narrowly focused, and just doesn't get the big picture of the Church. Those are not the matters that matter in the near future of the Church. Much bigger issues exist, and ecumenism is definitely one of them.

I do like the idea of Benedict "cleaning out the filth" of abuses (all types) in the Church, to clear the way for the next pontiff to handle the big picture issues though.

The liberal media is so anti-Christian it's pathetic.

PurdueAg01, other than ecumenism, what issues are out there that are bigger than contraception, abortion, celibacy (which many of us non-Catholics contributes to the sexual scandals in the church), and how the church treats women in general?

Faith (doctrine)
Divine Worship (liturgy)
Order (ecclesiology)
These are critical. If these are in order, the hot-button issues so loved by the secular media are less likely to be problematic.

As far as ecumenism, Ratzinger has spent a significant amount of time in the Roman Catholic-Lutheran ecumenical dialogue. He has also been involved with Roman Catholic-Anglican relations. As Prefect for the CDF, he had to tow a strict line inasmuch as he was watchdog for Catholic doctrine. This does not mean that he has abandoned his interest in ecumenism.
I will be interested to see how Pope Benedict approaches the Council for Christian Unity and how he utilises Cardinal Kaspar.

BTW,

quote:

---

celibacy (which many of us non-Catholics contributes to the sexual scandals in the church)

---

I think lack of celibacy has been the real problem!

[This message has been edited by BQ Mole Man (edited 4/19/2005 4:57p).]

What issue can possibly be bigger than eternal salvation?

quote:

---

As far as ecumenism, Ratzinger has spent a significant amount of time in the Roman Catholic-Lutheran ecumenical dialogue.

---

That is good to hear.

It will be interesting to watch and see if Benedict really is as strident as pope as he was as a cardinal. It's one thing to be the "Enforcer" when you are a cardinal, but it is entirely another to be that person when you are THE leader of a billion Catholics and the most visible Christian person in the world.

Something tells me that some of the prognistications about Benedict's tenure will be suprisingly off.

I hear he's going back to Germany to whip all of the Lutherans back into shape...

Actually, I don't think he will compromise on Catholic teachings in order to evangalize. He is the one that prevented joint communion between the Lutherans and the Catholics in Germany a few years ago...

Texasag73

Ecumenical relations don't have to begin with full communion. The Roman Catholic Church's softening of its stance on Martin Luther is an example of working in an ecumenical spirit.
No doubt the divisions will cease some day. Until then, we can earnestly work in a spirit of charity and forebearance.

Our local rag in an AP story said that when he was head of the CDF, he "urged caution in pursuing relations with other Christian denominations". How much of this was part of the job description vs. media idiocy vs. how he personally felt vs. how his views will change now that his responsibilities are different will have to be played out.

Personally, I think he's going to retreat from JP's overtures with the Prots, Jews and Muslims. He might grow in the position, but his age would seem to work against any substancial change during his probably relatively short papacy.

One can stand by his principles and still seek to find common ground with others. Pope Benedict's line has always been that ecumenism shouldn't involve abandoning beliefs in order to get along with others.

In "Declaration The Lord Jesus -- On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church" he said non-Christans were in a "gravely deficient situation" regarding salvation and that other Christian churches had "defects,"

tend to agree

An article from Christianity Today-
Upright But No Panzer Pope
Why he was chosen—and why he's no narrow-minded blockhead
by Uwe Siemon-Netto

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/116/34.0.html

Great article...The fact that the liberal media elite are in full revile mode must mean that he is a great man. I agree with Pope Benedict XVI on everything I have read about him so far. God bless him..

Good Benedict XVI article.

I found this particularly interesting –

quote:

---

“Almost unnoticed by the world's media looking for sensations at the memorial service for John Paul II, Ratzinger quietly communed Brother Roger Schutz, the Swiss Protestant pastor and founder of the vibrant ecumenical community in Taizé, France.

Benedict XVI, arguably the foremost Catholic theologian of our time, has always been an ecumenist, though never a fuzzy one. If he gives the Sacrament to a member of another Christian church—and Schutz was not the only one—he makes it abundantly clear he consider this person a fellow member of the mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church.

This is not the way narrow-minded blockheads behave.” (my emphasis)

---

WOW! This is HUGE if true. Again, [u]if true[/u], this is more ecumenical than anything JPII ever did that I am aware of. For Benedict XVI to share THE Sacrament with non-RCs speaks VOLUMES to me about the man. As usual, the media completely misses the import of this act.

I also really like this about Benedict –

quote:

---

He will doubtless baffle many of his former detractors by stressing the need for a return to reason, which is a central theme of his theology. For Ratzinger, the significance of reason was precisely why John the Evangelist used the word, "Logos," in referring to Christ in the opening sentence of his Gospel.
"'Logos' denotes reason and meaning, but also Word," Ratzinger wrote. "The God, who is Logos, assures us of the rationality of the world, the rationality of our being, the divine character of reason, and the reasonable character of God, even though God's rationality surpasses ours immeasurably and appears to us as darkness."
Ratzinger insists, "Rationality has been the postulate and the condition of Christianity and will remain a European legacy with which we can confront peacefully and positively Islam as well as the great Asian religions."
But where this rationality "reduces the great values of our being to subjectivity, then it will endanger and destroy man, it will amputate man."
Hence, he continued, "Europe must defend reason. To this extent we must be grateful to secular society and the Enlightenment. It must remain a thorn in our side, as secular society must accept the (Christian) thorn it its side—meaning the founding power of the Christian religion in Europe."

---

That is some seriously deep stuff and really drives the sharp end of the stick right to the heart of the matter. All Christians should be leary of the effects of post-modernism on our faith and on the world. Whatever Benedict XVI can do to undermine the legitimacy of post-modernism should be supported by all Christans and Jew, and perhaps even Muslims.

As I have said before, the Pope is much more complex than his image as Prefect of the CDF has allowed him to show. I agree with you that the post-modernist relativism which has seized mainstream understanding must be countered by the Church.

If we don't believe that there is an overarching metanarrative to human existence, we've completely lost the plot.

To truly understand the enlightenment, one must understand how Aquinas was the grandfather of it. While Aquinas believed that mans will was fallen, he did not believe mans intellect was fallen. This was the beginning of the exaltation of mans reason, the only thing missing was a disconnect of that reason from under the Word of God. This is how Reformation thought was truly the antithesis of Enlightenment thought. Rome’s relationship to all of this was simply to build up and point to it’s own authority to interpret things. The key to the power of God in effecting the Word is to seek after the space dominated by the original Reformers. An emphasis of humble submission to the Word of God as the final authority and judge of tradition and thought is the proper disposition that the Lord exalts. Any other position is an exaltation of man, and His promise is to oppose that.


This position of his is no different than the time of the enlightenment and reformation…

The Enlightenment humanists said “How do we interpret reality? -- by appealing ultimately to the authority of the reason of man.”

The Reformers said “How do we interpret reality? – By appealing ultimatly to the authority of the Word of God.”

Rome said “How do we interpret reality? – By appelaing ultimatly to Rome’s God given authority to interpret reality.”



[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 4/21/2005 9:58a).]

quote:

---

Rome’s relationship to all of this was simply to build up and point to it’s own authority to interpret things. The key to the power of God in effecting the Word is to seek after the space dominated by the original Reformers. An emphasis of humble submission to the Word of God as the final authority and judge of tradition and thought is the proper disposition that the Lord exalts. Any other position is an exaltation of man, and His promise is to oppose that.


This position of his is no different than the time of the enlightenment and reformation…

The Enlightenment humanists said “How do we interpret reality? -- by appealing ultimately to the authority of the reason of man.”

The Reformers said “How do we interpret reality? – By appealing ultimatly to the authority of the Word of God.”

Rome said “How do we interpret reality? – By appelaing ultimatly to Rome’s God given authority to interpret reality.”

---

Or, one could argue that the Reformers were the ultimate subjectivists, ergo relativists. Each seeing and interpreting the Word in their own subjective way, without the touchstone provided clearly by the New Testament text that annoints Peter as the rock of Christ's church and the holder of the keys and the Christ-given right and obligation to bind and loose. Why isn't that part of the Word honored?

All we have to do is look at the world around us and it is quite clear that the end result of Luther, Calvin, et al, is that we have an ever growing denominational split of opinion based on what each sect "believes" the Word to say. No one doubts that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli and all their ever-multiplying theological progeny sincerely believe(d) that THEY have the right interpretation. But clearly they all do not because they all disagree to some extent. So, in effect, the very Word you exalt is undermined.

XUSCR,

If you want to submit to that interpretation of things, then far be it from me to try and stop you. I just happen to believe that I know a hell of a lot more about the Protestant end of the Reformation than you, but don’t let me stop you… Go for it! Enlighten us some more, O Roman Catholic!

[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 4/21/2005 10:43a).]

quote:

---

If you want to submit to that interpretation of things, then far be it from me to try and stop you. I just happen to believe that I know a hell of a lot more about the Protestant end of the Reformation than you, but don’t let me stop you… Go for it! Enlighten us some more, O Roman Catholic!

---

This from the guy that thinks he knows Catholicism better than the pope himself. Have you been taking Viagra lately? Because you seem awfully impressed with yourself, relative to the other dimwits on this board, lately.

[This message has been edited by PurdueAg01 (edited 4/21/2005 10:58a).]

As a Pope, Ratzinger may pleasantly surprise alot of people. He is extremely well informed on the true finer points of the actual, not the simplified and more rhetorical reasons for the various divisions with either Protestants or Orthodox.

All the pundits need to remember that it was a Pope elected for so-called "transitional, short caretaker purposes" JOHN XXIII -- that turned a huge corner in things, and even launched a truly Ecumenical Council. (The Orthodox were not given realistic input in Vatican I).

One doesn't want to get into some false ecumenism, but the intriguing thing will be, if there are artificial gaps that have formed (and I can pinpoint several), Benedix XVI might try to identify and bridge them.

What can the endgame of RC ecumenism be but Prots bowing down to a Pope?

I feel confident that the lib Prot denominations will probably eventually do it to. They are willing to sacrifice truth for other ideals just as Rome is, so I do not doubt that a lasting unit can and will be forged. Only people like me will be the “hardline nutjobs” who just don’t see the alleged true call of God to peace, unity, and brotherhood that the enlightened ecumenists do.

I have no doubt that they will eventually be willing to give Prots their Eucharist, in spite of our "deficient" doctrinal positions as long as we do submit to the Popery (Which will make us suddenly much less deficent). Then Titan, you can feel very pleased, that the big ecumenical goal is achieved.

[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 4/21/2005 11:51a).]

Since it is The Church, then, yes, that would be the best "end game"

Alert Benedict that there will be holdouts! They will refuse to bow!!!!

quote:

---

Alert Benedict that there will be holdouts! They will refuse to bow!!!!

---

Perhaps they will cast us into a fire?

Notafraid, I ain't taking the bait, but I have to ask this:

You refer to Protestants as if they are some sort of monolithic entity. Nothing could be further from the truth. And that is EXACTLY the point that you either don't get or choose to ignore. The denominational "variety" among so-called Protestant churches is a direct result of everyone doing exactly what you propose is the path to Truth. How can that be?

For argument sake only, let's assume that the scriptural references to Peter as the rock of Christ's church on Earth and the crazy statements about him having the keys to the kingdom and being able to loose and bind all mean what Rome says they mean.

From that premise, and using your statements above about the Word being the touchstone (a point with which I agree by the way), then you would be compelled to agree that Rome is right.

Therefore, why don't we focus on your critique of the scriptural references in question.

quote:

---

What can the endgame of RC ecumenism be but Prots bowing down to a Pope?

---

There is another possibility. A return to more pre-9th century outlines. It would take alot of work.

quote:

---

I have no doubt that they will eventually be willing to give Prots their Eucharist, in spite of our "deficient" doctrinal positions as long as we do submit to the Popery (Which will make us suddenly much less deficent). Then Titan, you can feel very pleased, that the big ecumenical goal is achieved.

---

That's not my goal. In many cases, "submitting to popery" without reform of attitude and understanding on the Roman side, would be wrong. I am fairly sure however, that the sundered condition of the church should not be quickly accepted, and none of the parties will recognize how much secular politics governened this outcome. There are differences in doctrine, yes, but much narrower than they look or have grown into since 1500 (which itself was off course, so not a benchmark).

The Protestants for their part need to rethink on what basis they have thrown out, or very strongly de-emphasized doctrines and beliefs held by more or less rough-consensus from the time of the united apostolic church period.

quote:

---

There is another possibility. A return to more pre-9th century outlines. It would take alot of work.

---

No one, I mean NO one have ever called for that, nor will they.

quote:

---

That's not my goal. In many cases, "submitting to popery" without reform of attitude and understanding on the Roman side, would be wrong. I am fairly sure however, that the sundered condition of the church should not be quickly accepted, and none of the parties will recognize how much secular politics governened this outcome. There are differences in doctrine, yes, but much narrower than they look or have grown into since 1500 (which itself was off course, so not a benchmark).

---

It may not be the emphasis of your goal. But it is indeed part of your goal. How could it be otherwise, unless you seek to dissolve the power or office of the popery. The secular governments provided the protection for the Reformation to occur in. The rediscovered scriptures, and gospel was the engine behind the Reformation. Your suggestion that a recognition of the secular politics would be of help is something I can not agree with. The narrower differences of doctrine are something I also disagree with.

quote:

---

The Protestants for their part need to rethink on what basis they have thrown out, or very strongly de-emphasized doctrines and beliefs held by more or less rough-consensus from the time of the united apostolic church period.

---

That is exactly what the Reformation DID do!

XUSCR, you state

quote:

---

For argument sake only, let's assume that the scriptural references to Peter as the rock of Christ's church on Earth and the crazy statements about him having the keys to the kingdom and being able to loose and bind all mean what Rome says they mean.

---

You then draw the inference that Scripture mandates the RCC version of doctrine.

Buteven if we were to accept the RCC take on these scriptures, RCC doctrine is not necessarily verified.

Even with your take on the meaning of these Scriptures, you have to assume that Peter was the sole rock upon which the church would be built, an assumption which is contrary to the history recorded in Acts where both Paul and James were treated by the early church at least Peter's equals. There is even some evidence that Mary Magdalene was held in at least as high an esteem by the original as Peter. So either the factual record is wrong, or the early church did not understand Jesus' sayings as well as thr RCC does today.

You have to further assume that Peter in fact was the first bishop in Rome, an assumption that finds its basis not in the historical record but in later tradition. There is no contemporaneous documentation that Peter travelled to Rome, much less that he assumed a bishopric there. Traditions based on hearsay are less than persuasive in establishing doctrine as certain.

Further, you have to assume that the bishop of Rome at the time of Peter was the same office as the Bishop of Rome as presently constituted. This cannot be done successfully, as the best evidence is that the early popes were viewed completely differently than those following Constantine, much more so those of the "dark Ages' and even more so today. If the office of the Bishop of Rome is different today than thebishop of Rome at the time of Peter, then how can you say the RCC doctrine is correct? They have left the rock on which the church is to be built, even under the RCC understanding of these scriptures.

So, no, the Protestants are not hoist on their own petard in their reliance upon Scripture, even if the RCC interpretation of these scriptures is followed.

XUSCR,

quote:

---

Notafraid, I ain't taking the bait, but I have to ask this:

---

I had to chuckle about this, because, you actually believe that I am bating for response. I am not concerned with your your response, or your opinion. Modern RC opinions are fairly formulaic a dime a dozen. I am the one here with the outside the box scholarly insights of RCism here. Believe me to be wrong or not, from my perspective, you are just like any other post V2 dogma parrot.

Titan is the only RC on this board who does not fit that mould perfectly.

Notafraid,

quote:

---

No one, I mean NO one have ever called for that, nor will they.

---

That may well be so. Doesn't make the refusal correct.

quote:

---

It may not be the emphasis of your goal. But it is indeed part of your goal. How could it be otherwise, unless you seek to dissolve the power or office of the popery.

---

Considerable reductions and revisions would indeed follow, even as a minimum with the Orthodox. I am persuaded that the office itself is valid enough in some form from the start.

quote:

---

The secular governments provided the protection for the Reformation to occur in. The rediscovered scriptures, and gospel was the engine behind the Reformation. Your suggestion that a recognition of the secular politics would be of help is something I can not agree with. The narrower differences of doctrine are something I also disagree with.

---

But I do agree with your observation about the secular protection. But their interference was just as great. What needed to be taken away from Christianity now has been --- the abused power to imprison or slay for differences of opinion. Without that weapon, the Reformers could have spoken with far more space. That also goes for any before. The handling of heresy or dissent pre-imperialization of the faith (symbolized by Priscillian's execution in 384) is very instructive in this regard.

On the narrow differences of doctrine, they were . Narrow, but DEEP. What they have grown into since on both sides is another matter. The thing is, Ratzinger appears to have some idea of this. That's all that was being commented on.

quote:

---

That is exactly what the Reformation DID do!

---

Yes, but they apparently then went too far --- they threw out things established in the period of general consensus, pre Great Schism, when there is little reason to believe the councils or overall view erred seriously. Understand "they" refers to certain divisions of Protestants today. Some more than others, some less.

quote:

---

Because you seem awfully impressed with yourself, relative to the other dimwits on this board, lately.

---

PerdueAg01, I resent that, only my wife calls me a dimwit!

Seriously, this argument that goes something like this: There are numerous protestant denominations, but there is only one Catholic Church. Therefore, this church is the one true church because it is still together. I literally don't even understand the argument. If I have a club, and others break from it because of disagreements, and then some more clubs break from the "breakaways," then that means that the original club is superior because it's still around as the original club. I would argue the point, but it doesn't even make sense to me.

Also, you guys know that prots don't interpret the reference to petra like you do. We recognize the Pope as the leader of the Catholic denomination, not the leader of the church. The leader of the Body of Christ is it's head, Jesus Christ, at least that't my take on Ephesians. And yes, we are all ambassadors for Christ, but I don't see that there is a leader for the entire Body of Christ that is a man.



[This message has been edited by The Lone Stranger (edited 4/21/2005 1:23p).]

Notafraid,

One other thing,

Since you said this,

quote:

---

Titan is the only RC on this board who does not fit that mould perfectly.

---

I would respectfully submit about this:

quote:

---

I am the one here with the outside the box scholarly insights of RCism here. Believe me to be wrong or not, from my perspective, you are just like any other post V2 dogma parrot.

---

But you aren't `outside the box' on the Protestant take of the early church. A great deal of "RCism" as you call it, traces back to the apostolic anti-Nicene, indeed ante-canon, period. It is that time, not Trent, that holds some of the keys to the impasses.

Its also why many Catholics wrongly disrespect the Protestant challenge -- they are numbed or turned off by the attacks on the more clearly demonstrable or reasonably undispute beliefs of the foundation. Going into that mode, they then fail to hear or listen to the important emphases, and yes, properly Catholic points that many of the Protestants wanted to, and still seek to make, while others have just driven off the cliff.

quote:

---

Yes, but they apparently then went too far --- they threw out things established in the period of general consensus

---

That it was too far is debatable, but do you know their reasons for doing this?

quote:

---

But you aren't `outside the box' on the Protestant take of the early church

---

I understand where you are coming form on this, but I would not put me exactly in the same category, especially with my appeals to early Church fathers. I agree that there was an abandonment of some early church things, but there were also some errors early on as well.

quote:

---

they are numbed or turned off by the attacks on the more clearly demonstrable or reasonably undispute beliefs of the foundation.

---

When I think of foundation, I think of that on which the church his built, the Apostles. If your argument is about some transfer of power, and keys to an earthly lineage, I do believe that, some of those views were rightly abandoned.